No, not an MRA, and I've never been divorced. And I'm fine with court mandated child support. There are absolutely dead beat dads out there who need to have the law force them to help support their kids. I just feel there is a huge gap between supporting your child and providing 46k a month. That's an excessive…

I absolutely believe men should be responsible for their children. I believe in child support and I believe Pinault should pay child support. I also believe 46k per month goes beyond being responsible for your child and enters the realm of lavish spending on said child that you may or may not approve of, yet your…

I apologize if I'm coming across as patronizing towards the custodial parent. And I certainly don't have any issue with child support in general. I've said several times throughout my myriad posts on this subject that I feel he should support the child, and I don't blame Evangelista for trying to get the most she can.…

That's an understandable fear on her part, and if she feels that strongly about it she should feel free to hire said security. That's a choice she is free to make.

He is *most definitely* responsible for that.

But by your logic the married parents of a kid should provide that kid with whatever they want, simply because their income can provide it. That's simply now how it works. A parent gets to decide what they will provide to the child beyond the basics for support (food, shelter, clothes). And I'm uncomfortable with a…

He didn't know this was his son until last summer. Any lifestyle this kid is accustomed to is through no direct action on the part of Pinault. If Evangelista chose to raise this kid in a 10 million dollar condo in NYC and provide horseback and violin lessons, that was her choice. Pinault should absolutely be required…

No, I can't imagine a man saying that to the mother of his child. I think most decent people want to take care of their children, or at least I hope they do, although it's entirely possible I have too much faith in humanity. But that's the thing: he should have the ability to make that decision. If he wants to…

I agree that he will most likely end up paying that figure or something close to it. And it's not like he can't afford it. I certainly don't feel sorry for the guy. I just feel that extending the logic of this to typical families would indicate that every kid has to have the exact same amount of money spent on them.…

From everything I've heard, the courts typically work off a 14% of income figure, which would actually be more than 46k per month, so I'm sure he'll end up paying this or close to it. But I'm fairly certain that law (a good law) exists for situations where a much smaller amount of money is being dealt with, and that…

Spending the same amount on both children would be the right thing to do, absolutely. He's an asshole if he basically disowns his son and doesn't give him anything. But this guy might be a huge asshole, I don't know. I really don't think any parent should be legally obligated to spend the exact amount on both their…

If Evangelista wants her son to go to private school and have drivers and nannies, she should be responsible for the cost. If Pinault doesn't care if his son has those things, he should not be responsible for the cost. He absolutely needs to support the child, but 46k per month is a ludicrous sum. The only thing…

I don't understand why everyone assumes that because he pays that amount for Valentina each month that he necessarily needs to do the same for his son. Would I pay equally for all my children? Yes. Is he an asshole if he doesn't do it? Yes. But saying "his daughter gets this much every month, so his son should too"…

I had several back and forths with commentors further down the thread on this subject. I absolutely agree he should support his son financially, but 46k a month goes well beyond the realm of supporting the child.

I don't feel sorry for him either. I'm trying to approach this from a general principal standpoint and not look at this guy in particular. Sure, he can afford the 46k a month, but that's not really the point.

Let me be clear: I don't think it's ok to let the daughter be rich and screw over the son. That's not how I'm wired. But if he values his daughter more, or if he wants to lavish wealth on her and not his son, that's his perogative. No parent should be legally obligated to make their kids rich.

No, actually. I have a 3 year old daughter with my wife. I've never been divorced and don't have any kids besides the one. I'm not talking about myself in any of this, but just trying to play devil's advocate. I don't agree with about 99% of what Republicans spew out either, but I acknowledge their right to spew it.

Maybe he doesn't want his kid to travel. Maybe he doesn't want his kid to go to private school. Maybe he doesn't want his kid to wear Gucci. That's my whole point. None of that is necessary. Sure, it's nice, but completely irrelevant to whether the kid is being cared for in any reasonable sense. Look, I don't agree…

From a personal standpoint, I agree with you and I would never put a child of mine in that position. But we're not talking about me, or you, or anyone else. This particular guy should have the right to act like a dick to his kid if he wants to. Does it make him an asshole if that's the case? Absolutely. But he…

Apparently the law disagrees with me, and that's fine. But if you think it's common sense that this particular kid needs 46k a month to be raised properly...well, I guess that says something about your perspective.